State of Iowa v. Samuel Lee Harris, 16-1139

Background

Samuel Harris pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily injury and child endangerment pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement; sentencing was set after the plea.
Harris had court-appointed counsel who assisted with plea negotiations and was present when the plea was accepted.
Prior to sentencing Harris signed a written waiver of counsel; his attorney did not appear at the sentencing hearing for reasons not revealed in the record.
The district court conducted an on-the-record colloquy, confirmed Harris read and signed the waiver, and asked whether he voluntarily wished to proceed without counsel.
The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence (60 days concurrent with 13 days credit). Harris appealed, arguing he was deprived of counsel and that counsel was ineffective for not attending sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether waiver of counsel at sentencing was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent	State: Written waiver plus on-the-record colloquy satisfied constitutional requirements	Harris: Colloquy was inadequate; court failed to re-admonish on each waiver item and to warn about proceeding without counsel	Waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent given written waiver, prior counsel involvement, plea context, and court colloquy — affirmed
Whether defendant was denied right to counsel because appointed counsel absent at sentencing	State: Absence did not invalidate waiver where defendant knowingly waived counsel	Harris: Proceeding in absence of appointed counsel deprived him of the right to counsel	Court rejected deprivation claim based on totality of circumstances and adequate waiver colloquy
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to attend sentencing	Harris: Counsel’s absence was ineffective assistance and caused prejudice	State: Record lacks facts explaining absence or showing prejudice	Claim preserved for postconviction relief because record is insufficient to resolve ineffective-assistance on direct appeal
Whether the record supported immediate reversal or remand for further factfinding about counsel’s absence	Harris: Barren record justifies reversal/remand	State: No reversal necessary given valid waiver	Court declined to reverse; preserved ineffective-assistance claim; one judge dissented believing reversal required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Majeres, 722 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2006) (waiver must be knowing and intelligent; less rigorous warnings for plea-related waivers)
State v. Stephenson, 608 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2000) (court must engage in colloquy to ensure valid waiver)
State v. Cooley, 608 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 2000) (factors for adequate waiver colloquy drawn from Von Moltke)
Hannan v. State, 732 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa 2007) (surrounding circumstances determine sufficiency of colloquy; admonish as to usefulness of counsel)
State v. Boggs, 741 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 2007) (right to counsel applies at critical stages including sentencing)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (ineffective-assistance claims reviewed de novo)
State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (if record inadequate on direct appeal, preserve ineffective-assistance claim for postconviction relief)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1948) (warning standards for waiver of counsel)